>>58753420>Explain why AI is bad so I can dismiss it by saying you're stupid for being mad about itAI is a bunch of 1s and 0s at the end of the day - "if - then" systems, "yes or no" answers. It draws on what is already there, and rarely draws a connection betwixt what it's being asked to do and what it needs to do.
Just taking art out of the equation for now, if you asked the AI to code a script for you that does a number of things, it will draw from its own memories of what it has collected and attempt to cobble together what you ask for, right down to the perceived buggy mess that code originally was on its own, to adding its own flavor of bugs because it lacks the thought capacity to comprehend what it's doing in the moment aside from what it's being asked. It's like asking it to develop a PC storage system for Pokemon, and it draws from a collective of material from Pokemon Black and White, and then for some inane reason, also draws from some out-there fan game for no intrinsic reason, and then when you tell it to do it again with no further changes to your prompt, it makes it from Red and Blue, but also from FireRed and LeafGreen. Sure you can refine your prompts, but by the time you get salvageable code, you have to spend even more time parsing through it and combing through the junk data with asinine descriptions (or lack thereof) than you would have had to with just copy-pasting relevant game code from a previous game.
Art is marginally different, but draws on the same principle of it drawing from its own resources to output a result, with even the most basic of details getting lost on the literal noise. People tend to notice the small details moreso than the bigger, grander ones, so when AI messes up, it typically is with those finer details like fingers, eyes, teeth, mouth, nails, and other seemingly innocuous details it isn't programmed to considered. It's just smart enough to dazzle people with enough bullshit that people will fall for it.
